you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 3 years ago (7 children)

Except they had things like the G.I. bill which gave them money to go to college or buy a house and improve their lives. Every man who was in the military in WWII had that as an option. Maybe some didn't utilize it, but that was by choice. If you include their spouses and children, that's way more than 10% of the population.

Wages were comparatively higher too.

But I don't know anyone on the left pining for the lifestyle of the 1950s, that's something conservatives want. I wouldn't mind the wages of the 1950s (adjusted for inflation) and I wouldn't mind taxing the rich at 90%, but I sure would mind the racism and the sexism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (6 children)

    I wouldn’t mind the wages of the 1950s (adjusted for inflation)

    Adjusted for inflation, much lower than today

    I wouldn’t mind taxing the rich at 90%

    There were loopholes that allowed most people to pay much less, so that's why they closed those loopholes later

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (5 children)

    Adjusted for inflation, much lower than today

    Evidence please.

    There were loopholes that allowed most people to pay much less, so that’s why they closed those loopholes later

    Remind me how much rich people pay in taxes now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (4 children)

    We don't have good WAGE data before 1964

    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_real_wages_%28red,_in_constant_2017_dollars%29.png

    but we also have household income data for earlier years

    https://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/famincome.html

    but it doesn't match 100% because what a household is differs (households used to be bigger in the 1950s)

    but you can see that 1950-1964 the household incomes grew quickly, so the 1950s were a period of growth, you were a lot better off by 1970

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (3 children)

    You made a claim about 1950s income you now can't back up? Interesting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (2 children)
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, because women generally didn't work. That's a terrible metric.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 years ago

    But that's the argument people are making, that you could live better on one income in the 50s. But actually, not really. You would have less money, even if you include inflation. People these days have higher rates of home ownership, car ownership, TV ownership than people in the 50s.

    Look at ANY metric of "having money or stuff" and people today are better off

  • source
  • parent